This is very frustrating

Status
Not open for further replies.
_____________________________________________
PS: To all the soldiers, marines, sailors and whatnot out there: You have sworn an oath to protect the constitution of the US, NOT the PEOPLE of the US. If they pass a law tomorrow that forbids guns and some rabid pro gun folks start marching (armed) towards Washington then that is simply: "bunch of freaks VS government. The constitution is not violated in any way. Not engaging the aggressive mob will not only get your court marshalled but also make you oath breaker. Simple as that
_____________________________________________

Not so simple:

First, the Army, Navy and Air Force are specifically Constitutionally forbidden to engage in police actions within the borders of the United States. This includes the Reserves at all times and the National Guard when operating at a federal level. The National Guard may act as a police force within its state borders under orders of that state's Governer only. When the National Guard is called up for Federal operation, whether Army, Navy or Air Force, it falls under the same Constitutional restrictions as the active duty Army, Navy and Air Force and their respective Reserves.

You will note that I did not mention the Marines as yet. The reason is that the Marines have a slightly different charter which includes a statement that they must also perform whatever duties the President of the US tasks them with.

However

To the statement that the military is tasked with protection of the Constitution and not the people, you are correct but proceed to use it in a false manner.

The military is sworn to protect the Constitution, yes, it is not sworn to protect the people, true, but neither is it sworn to protect the government.

If the government violates the Constitution in any laws it passes or action it takes, then the oath would lead to the concept that the military must protect the integrity of Constitutional law. NOT the government, which is what you seek to protect.

The Army, Navy and Air Force, their respective Reserves and the National Guard would not be allowed, by Constitutional law to engage in the action that you describe. Thus, disobeying an order to defend the government under these circumstances could not, legally, result in Court Martial.

The Marines, and their respective Reserves (I don't believe that a Marine National Guard exists, correct me if I'm wrong), likewise, could not be Court Martialed legally since their primary oath is to defend the Constitution, i.e., the integrity of Constitutional Law IF the Second Amendment is a protection against a government ban on guns, which is a different argument.

Thus your argument doesn't fly.
 
I say again, this guy (HelgeS) is a stone troll.

> 2) Humans have a right to protect their life (Premise)<

That one is already tougher. I would say: Humans have a right to protect their lives if that does not inheritely mean taking other lives.

Tell ya what Helge.... Show me to your 13 year old daughter. I'll proceed to rip her clothes off, beat her unconcious, and rape her for an hour. During this time, YOU will sit there and watch. OR, I can place a loaded gun on a table first.

"What will you do, what will you do?"

People, this guy is as fascist as they come. A TRUE BELIEVER in the IRON RULE of the government.

Helge, I sincerely invite you to leave this forum. Based upon all your threads, you have ABSOLUTELY no desire to UNDERSTAND the issue, but instead want to convince US of the "moral rightness" of your position.

We won't be convinced. Your arguments are intellectually bankrupt. Please go away. Really.
 
Unfortunately, our gov't has used our military on our citizens. Even worse, on some of our war veterans. Do some research on the Bonus Army in the post WWI era. Sad. But also very illegal. Our military is intended only for defense against foreign aggression (the misuses of that are another topic altogether) and is not to be used against the citizenry. Even if Congress got the 3/4 vote it needs to revoke the 2nd Amendment, the military could not be used to enforce the law. We have the FBI, BATF, DEA, state & local agencies, etc. to police the civilian population.

I'm glad someone caught my misspelling - it is "Court Martial" not "Court Marshall". I don't know where my head was at.

I don't know why I have to point this out, but murder was invented long before the gun. We've been killing each other for a while now, removing guns won't make human nature change overnight. All the gun did was level the playing field a bit. In hand-to-hand and manual powered missile weapons (sling, arrows, spears, etc.), the advantage belongs to the younger, the stronger, the more aggressive. Picture an unarmed 250lb. man attacking an unarmed 120lb woman. Now, arm the woman with a bat or a knife - do you see the obvious problem? She has to be close enough to use it, have the skills to use it effectively, while she's close enough for him to attack back. With a gun, that's not the case. Even if they both have guns, size, speed, strength are all unimportant in a gunfight - that's the absolute worst case.

HelgeS, you seem to be disagreeing without arguing. You are full of anecdotes and fables, but I haven't seen you post one fact to support your position.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
In our current environment, yes. Overall, I am not sure. See, if the environment would be largely gun free, then criminals would not need to run around with guns either. Then suddenly running away becomes much more efficient (as in "nobody gets hurt, attacker AND defender"). A british bobby can execute the law with a hard rubber stick. He can do that, because the amount of guns out there is minimal. [/quote]

It is a known fact that all categories of violent crime rates went DOWN after the invention of the gun in a form reliable for use (circa 1700-1750.) This is documented in London, and in Paris, amoung other places. The concept of carrying concealed weapons is equally historic; it is known that the American delegation to Paris in 1797, during the XYZ affair, carried pistols for their own protection (esp. Elbridge Gerry as he complained to his Parisian hosts of his need to keep the pistols, "under his pillow" because of the dangerousness of his ground floor apartment.)

It cannot be said that the availability of guns promotes the criminal use of guns. You have no proof to refute this because it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, you are deliberatly ignoring the greatest reason we allow citizens to keep and bear arms; the ability of the weaker to defend against the harrassment of the stronger. You would have us make elderly ladies victems in their own houses for sake of your ability to control people.

Even worse is the fact that I see you are proud of yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It IS an illegal act to take life with a gun UNLESS you are acting in self defence. Self defence is NOT to blow away that robber we threatens you with a fist. I don't know if this is the case in the US, but in europe you are only allowed to defend yourself if your life or that of others is directly endangered AND you are supposed to defend yourself with adequat tools (a gun shot against the rubbers fists is NOT adequat!).[/quote]

Once again the anti-gun crowd shows us just how uninformed and intellectually dishonest they are.

I'll say this once Helge... THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE US WHERE IT IS LEGAL FOR YOU TO SHOOT SOMEONE OTHER THAN TO DEFEND YOU LIFE, OR TO PREVENT A VIOLENT FELONY.

For you to even speculate otherwise is blatant evidence of your unwilling nature to admit your preconcieved notions are wrong, illconceived and illtempered. You are here, not for debate, but to get your jollies as an adolesent child wearing his dads shoes and hat.

Do yourself a favor, read something other than the opressive liberalistic treaties on human rights. Your lack of worldliness is showing and you ought to take stock of it.



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Danger Dave,

Indeed, the US Military has actually been used against its citizenry, but, as you say, this is an illegal act. I am actually aware of the incident you mention.

In fact, the Army was used during the aftermath of hurricane Andrew (not sure if it was that particular hurricane, but you get the idea) along with the National Guard, albeit without any ammunition for this weapons. I am unsure, however, whether this was legal or not since the regular troops were neither engaged in police actions nor were they armed. They were acting primarily as a relief force.
 
I've got to say it too, why do TFLers talk to this guy. What sort of meanigful gratification are you getting out of it? This guy is indeed a troll, what is the fascination with trolling? Why do you think you are going to win any concessions with this person? This last gambit of fuzzy explanations...of what if's is rather amazing that any of you accept his premise of babbling logic. I guess we are supposed to shut up and let this fellow walk all over us because we are too damn dumb to wise up. Now, if this don't set well with the moderators or the TFLers, you tell me why it has to continue...us playing his game...or you playing his game.

Jim
 
HelgeS, Assure me that no person, government, intruder or attacker would ever cause me or my family harm. I am 50 years old and can still hit quite hard with my hands but I only weigh 140 lbs. Are you going to protect us from an intruder or a government that decides to take away the rights of the citizens of
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ? Even if you could and would it's still WRONG. The ownership of firearms is my Right and self protection issues aside, they are my hobby. BTW even though I own 70 or so of these evil firearms I have never injured anyone with a firearm except during a military engagement.
Best to you and yours.
 
Sometimes it's more fun than arguing with those you agree with :)

Seriously, though, it's always a chance to refine your arguments, see if you can change the other person's mind (whether they admit it or not). Once in a while, you actually have your own mind changed (not in this case, necessarily, but in general, arguing with someone you disagree with). And I'm not convinced that everyone with a different point of view is a troll. I like to think of them as pro-gunners who don't know it yet. :)
 
Howdy Helge!

Good to see you again.

Looks to me like these guys have got the matter well under control, but I thought I’d add a couple notes of my own. Looks to me like you’re working from some seriously flawed premises.

1. “Self defense is NOT to blow away that robber we threatens you with a fist. “

Helge, I can kill or cripple a human being with my bare hands. Scary what you learn in some martial arts classes -- it’s surprising how fragile the human body can be. That said, I’d wager a lot of these guys on this board , to say nothing of a lot of criminals out there, could do the same to me in a matter of seconds. Un PC as it is for me to say this, all training being equal, a woman going up against man is, on the average, gonna go down. Hard. Don’t even get me started on these 2-hour college “defense seminars.”

Add guns into the mix, and you even the odds.

For more of my little diatribe on weapons, women, and self-defense: http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=28020
(toward the bottom)

2. Disarming, then attacking the citizenry means the “constitution is not violated in any way”??!? Oh man... That I’m gonna leave for you military guys to dispel. Besides Helge -- you're TALKING to those "bunch of freaks" that would likely be marching on Washington.

And James -- think of it as “target practice” for our letters to the editor. At least Helge here can be somewhat rational, as opposed to the mindless “for the children” bleating we get on TV. Besides, (no flame intended) don’t like the topic, don’t read it. Closing the topic don’t do anything but convince our guest we’re too interested in picking lint from our .308 navels to argue rationally. In my mind, dispelling the “knuckle-dragging escapees from Deliverance” stereotype is already a victory.
 
Colombe, you are correct. Not everyone with a differing viewpoint is a troll. But THIS GUY IS. And remember the old adage: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig."

Have fun. (oink)

Don't feed the trolls.

[This message has been edited by Dennis Olson (edited July 20, 2000).]
 
Thanks for the reply Meiji. Would you mind if we continue the debate over email? Apart from your post I have again only received useless ranting (with the exception of the few lines concerning the military law in the US, which I have to admit I am not familiar with, now I am, thank you kindly).

I am going to stop the attempts of discussing the issue in public, it seems more and more pointless. I would just like to mention that I went to an MMM forum, actively making "pro gun arguments" (many of which from Meiji here, thanks for them). I was generally well received and offered a whole range of good arguments (a bunch of bad ones too, as well as a flame from one guy). I am sure that board is capable of accepting and convincing neutral people (that
is what I really am if you ask me straight out on the street. In each forum it is of course necessary to assume a contrary stance to get any kind of good information from the members of the board). In contrast, the numbers seem to be reversed in this forum: 3 people giving solid good arguments, lots of people posting flames. Board masters, for the sake of public relations, maybe you should think a bit about that issue.

cheers

Helge

PS: While typing somebody again posted something about "using guns to protect the country". Are you guys completely paranoid?? In contrast to the rest of the world with its close neighbours and constant struggles, there is NOBODY who is even anywhere close to the USA. Nobody CAN attack the USA conventionally. The allied forces barely managed to get across the few kilometers of the channel and get a bridgehead against a minute number of third rate defenders. Do you really think anybody can do the same feat if you replace the channel is thousands of miles of ocean and the defenders with an entire army having days to set up a defence?
Or are you thinking about Canada here?? Hey ho, the Canadian attack!! Yeah!! The US custom officers could repell it and then conquer canada by themselves!
The only way to harm the US would be a long range attack with missiles and the likes. Good luck stopping that with shotguns....
Get real folks!! Nature has blessed the US with the ultimate defence line.
So who is left to attack you? Your government (at least that's what some here shout). But then, haven't we just heard all kinds of bold replies from the various members of the military that they would all support the people, that they would actually HAVE TO support the people. Is your military really so crappy that you guys need to back them with armed civilians so that they can stand a chance in the fight of "US people, US military VS US government". Damm.. didn't know that your Senators were such vicious fighters, each taking the odd 100000 infantrymen down.
Guys, get real. Guns/Crime issue is possible to discuss. Guns/Protection is just paranoid.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But then, I am not here to convince, I am here to debate. As much for my benefit as for yours.[/quote]

HelgeS, how will this debate benefit you?
 
ALL,

If this thread is a bother to you, skip the thread. TFL has other threads and even other forums which may be more to your liking.

So long as a member addresses permissable topics (related to firearms and/or civil rights) in a courteous manner, he is to be treated likewise. Capische?

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
in a courteous manner

I guess we just disagree on that part. I suggest you might re-read this guy's posts IN THEIR ENTIREY and re-evaluate your opinion.
 
Helge,
We try to close threads once they contain 100K. Long threads are difficult to load for members with slow connections.

Therefore, I'll close this thread and begin another with the title,

"Helge and the Use of Force"

See you there. ;)

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 20, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top